CLEVELAND, Ohio - As rolls of the programming dice go, it doesn't get much more intriguing than what ABC is attempting with "The Conners." The network essentially has decided to bring back "Roseanne" without Roseanne.

Well, to be clear, it won't have Roseanne Barr, who was fired by ABC after her infamous racist tweet in May. Details are sparse. A tersely worded statement released by the network says, "Roseanne Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series."

It's not impossible that they would recast Roseanne Conner, the character played by Roseanne during the series' original 1988-97 run and the hit revival, which premiered in March. It's possible but not likely.

It's also not impossible that they'll kill off the character. That seems more likely. Or they could exile the character, sending her off to anywhere that's far removed from the Conners' hometown of Lanford, Illinois.

Or they could rewrite history, creating a new reality (as they did by bringing John Goodman's character, Dan, back to life). Or they could keep Roseanne alive but unseen, acknowledged but always just missed being glimpsed on-camera.

So many choices for executive producer Tom Werner and his team. The problem is that not one of these options sounds ideal. Indeed, each one casts a pall over a show that was built so solidly and completely around the central character of Roseanne Conner.

ABC only has provided the briefest of descriptions: "After a sudden turn of events, the Conners are forced to face the daily struggles of life in Lanford in a way they never have before." About the only other thing the network has confirmed is that "The Conners" will air in the fall with the entire cast (minus Barr) and some new cast members.

TV history suggests that "The Conners," being billed as a spin-off series, is not in for a long run. Faced with the loss of top-billed stars, for whatever reason, scripted prime-time programs typically last a little while as a curiosity, then gradually fade away.

We've seen that time and again when a hit show is hit with the loss of its star, whether because of death, contract disputes or scandal. It's difficult to dispel the shadow that hangs over a series coping with such a casting crisis. Difficult, but not without precedent.

That's what makes this gamble so fascinating. There have been exceptions, and ABC need only look into its own past for one of the most notable.

"NYPD Blue" was an acclaimed crime drama built around the character of police detective John Kelly, played by David Caruso. When Caruso bolted the show in its second season for a movie career that never took off, producers successfully transitioned Dennis Franz's Andy Sipowicz into the lead character and gave more opportunities to the strong supporting cast.

What happened? "NYPD Blue" turned into an even better drama, running for 12 seasons.

And it's not as if this is the only exception. How about "The Andy Griffith Show" without Andy Griffith? Couldn't possibly work, you say? But it did. When Griffith called it quits in 1968, CBS revamped the comedy as "Mayberry R.F.D.," which ran for three seasons.

Only the network's 1971 purge of its rural shows killed off "Mayberry R.F.D," which was a top-15 show when CBS canceled it.

NBC made the gamble work, too, in 1987, when the sitcom "Valerie" went on without top-billed star Valerie Harper, due to a contract dispute with producers. Sandy Duncan was brought in as an aunt. The show was retitled "Valerie's Family," then "The Hogan Family," and with a cast that included future "Arrested Development" star Jason Bateman, it ended up running four more seasons.

If "Valerie" could go on without Valerie, it's worth the gamble to see if "Roseanne" can go on without Roseanne. Like "NYPD Blue," "The Conners" has a strong remaining cast, which includes the always-watchable Goodman and Emmy winner Laurie Metcalf. There's some high-caliber comedic firepower here.

"The Conners" also might benefit from the double shot of curiosity and good wishes. Even Barr is on the record with hopes for success.

"I regret the circumstances that have caused me to be removed from 'Roseanne,' " she said in statement about the agreement that will allow Werner to produce the spin-off. "I agreed to the settlement in order that 200 jobs of beloved cast and crew could be saved, and I wish the best for everyone involved."

Her former co-stars are counting on a lot of love in the fall. That was evident in a joint statement released by Goodman, Metcalf, Sara Gilbert, Lecy Goranson and Michael Fishman: "We have received a tremendous amount of support from fans of our show, and it's clear that these characters not only have a place in our hearts, but in the hearts and homes of our audience. We all came back last season because we wanted to tell stories about the challenges facing a working-class family today. We are so happy to have the opportunity to return with the cast and crew to continue to share those stories through love and laughter."

Still, odds on this gamble easily could be shaded the other way. Liberals might not show up because they didn't like the original idea of a revival with Barr, an outspoken supporter of President Trump. And conservatives may desert, angry over Barr's ouster.

This isn't the only series trying to go on after the loss of its main player. Netflix's "House of Cards" is attempting a season without Kevin Spacey, fired after accusations of sexual misconduct. Amazon's "Transparent" will try to keep things going after the departure of Jeffrey Tambor, who left after allegations of sexual harassment.

But the political and social-media frenzy surrounding Barr's firing has kicked up so much dust, it makes it difficult to see how and if "The Conners" can survive, let alone thrive. The timing and intensity of this controversy mean that, for the most part, you can toss out the precedents.

As Jerry Seinfeld put it, "I never saw somebody end their entire career with one button push." Whether or not he was joking, he has a point.

The one safe bet is that this is anything but a safe bet. ABC is moving from uncharted waters into deeper uncharted waters. Risky? Of course, very risky, and that's why they call it gambling.